🎦 Star Trek full movie HD download (J.J. Abrams) - Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi. 🎬
Star Trek
Year:
2009
Country:
USA, Germany
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.0
Director:
J.J. Abrams
Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, retired
Zachary Quinto as Captain Spock
Leonard Nimoy as Captain Spock
Eric Bana as Nero
Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike
Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Zoe Saldana as Captain Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg as Capt. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
John Cho as Captain Hikaru Sulu
Anton Yelchin as Commander Pavel Chekov
Ben Cross as Ambassador Sarek
Winona Ryder as Amanda
Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk
Jennifer Morrison as Winona Kirk
Storyline: On the day of James Kirk's birth, his father dies on his ship in a last stand against a mysterious alien time-traveling vessel looking for Ambassador Spock, who, in this time, is also a child on Vulcan disdained by his neighbors for his half-human heritage. Twenty-five years later, Kirk has grown into a young troublemaker. Challenged by Captain Christopher Pike to realize his potential in Starfleet, he comes to annoy instructors like young Commander Spock. Suddenly, there is an emergency at Vulcan and the newly commissioned USS Enterprise is crewed with promising cadets like Nyota Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Chekov and even Kirk himself, thanks to Leonard McCoy's medical trickery. Together, this crew will have an adventure in the final frontier where the old legend is altered forever as a new version of it begins.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 1534 Mb h264 1690 Kbps mp4 Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x480 px 2384 Mb mpeg4 2627 Kbps mp4 Download
DVD-rip 640x480 px 627 Mb mpeg4 690 Kbps mp4 Download
iPhone 480x200 px 665 Mb mpeg4 732 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
Despicable strip-mining of cultural icon
Arrogance, ignorance and disrespect are writ large in this abominable film which, with its cynical use of time-travel, does two unforgivable things.

In one fell swoop it destroys all other Star Trek stories and histories (apart from the predated last TV series Enterprise). IT ALL NEVER HAPPENED...nada...zip...niente...all absolutely and completely and irrevocably nullified.

And having thus performed genocide, from here on in it allows this cabal of contemptuous filmmakers to commit further evil against the Star Trek characters and their universe, totally unfettered by Star Trek, as we know it. The Star Trek they are cannibalising only continues to exist today because devoted fans have - for over forty years - lovingly burnished and enhanced the patina of this pop culture treasure.

Within the real Star Trek universe, respect for the time-line is a key ethical principle for the Federation and its officers. The forces that have brought the world this film are unburdened by ethics of any kind. It is not surprising then, to find that while they use time-travel to sack, rape and pillage Star Trek, they are unwilling or unable to carry it out to its logical conclusions.

At the very least, from the moment of the destruction of Vulcan (in itself a breathtaking and staggering insolence by the filmmakers), Ambassador Spock, Nero and their ships would have ceased to exist in the current time-line because the future events that led to their being there would not have occurred. No planet Vulcan, no Vulcan Science Academy, no Spock's ship with its enormous load of 'red matter', no failed rescue mission for Ambassador Spock, no avenging Nero, no ridiculous black hole/wormhole to the time and place of Kirk's birth etc.

This is not a parallel universe story. This is a changed timeline. Although the Temporal Prime Directive is still hundreds of years hence in the Star Trek canon, this is exactly what it seeks to prevent.

So it's all a con. This is not Star Trek. A bunch of bully-boys have invaded the playing field, rewritten the rules of the game to suit themselves and then refused to even abide by their own rules. On the back of the commercial success of this movie, they will continue to do what they please, churning out movies in their new franchise, but it won't be Star Trek. They don't know what made Star Trek great and they are therefore doomed to twist and distort its corpse until it becomes obvious to all who care to think about that it's dead and lifeless and that this movie killed it.
2009-05-20
Very Sad
The initial idea was great. Fans expected some good story telling about time before The Original Series. But we got childish mambo-jumbo with lot of explosions and incoherent plot. We learned that planet Vulcan was destroyed, but how did it manage to exist in The Original Series and movie sequels? Why did screenplay ignore the knowledge of fans in such arrogant way? Acting looks like gang of high school boys and girls having fun of private party. OK, I can understand if in the mind of production the target consumers supposed to be children, but why all the fans from 1960s were ignored? Pity for such a great franchise. Unbelievably bellow Star Trek films which had great screenplays.
2009-05-20
Very disappointed.
******SPOILERS BELOW******

---Doctor Korby: Are you with me, Captain?

---Captain Kirk: You've created your own Kirk. Why do you need me?

---Doctor Korby: I created him to impress you, not to replace you.

---Captain Kirk: I'm impressed, Doctor. But not the way you think.

{from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"}

This movie didn't have an extended title; it was just Star Trek. But I have some ideas for an extended title:

"The Unreal McCoy"

"Bad Robot Poops On Star Trek"

"Let's Pervert Star Trek To Appease Teenagers"

"Abrams Pilots Star Trek Over The Shark"

I have been a Star Trek fan for 42 years. I have seen every Star Trek story made for the movie screen and TV screen (including the animated series). This was one of the worst Star Trek stories I ever saw.

It was not necessary to "reboot" Star Trek. It was not necessary to change the Enterprise. It was not necessary for Spock and Uhura to have the hots for each other. It was not necessary to destroy Vulcan. It was not necessary to kill Amanda, although it was necessary to remove Winona Ryder from the movie.

There are good parts of the movie. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, who accepted the enormous challenges of playing Kirk and Spock, performed very well. Ben Cross, as Sarek, proved my belief that he would be a good Vulcan. The visual effects were very good, as I would expect from ILM.

However, the many changes in Star Trek history were unjustified. These changes can't be glossed over by saying, "It's obviously an alternate-universe story." That wasn't firmly established in the movie. (There is a difference between alternate-universe and alternate-timeline.) What I saw was J.J. Abrams, Robert Orci, and Alex Kurtzman rewriting Star Trek in a shameless attempt to attract young airheads who wouldn't care about Star Trek anyway.

The absurd design of the "new" Enterprise only reminded me of how beautiful the original NCC-1701 was. The "new" Bridge looked like a disco. The "new" Engineering areas looked like an oil refinery.

The other members of the new cast were mostly disappointing. Zoe Saldana is a lovely lady, but she couldn't carry Nichelle Nichols' boots. Karl Urban's performance almost was a parody of McCoy; he only reminded me of how much I miss DeForest Kelley. John Cho won't make me forget George Takei. Anton Yelchin made Chekov almost irritating. And Simon Pegg almost turned Scotty into the Court Jester (and why did they include that pint-size rockface? Is he the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek?).

Kirk's rapid promotion also was absurd. No matter how good a young officer is, no one rises from Cadet to Captain that fast.

The soundtrack was forgettable. (I've already forgotten it.)

Obviously, nitpickers would go ape over this movie. The star dates - in the 2200s - would set this story in the first season of The Original Series (TOS), long after Kirk became Captain. Delta Vega was moved from the edge of the galaxy to next to Vulcan. The uniforms, like the "new" Enterprise, don't jibe with TOS or "The Cage." (They looked like cheap knockoffs I would find in a costume shop.) And how can the Kelvin carry 800 people?

If this was an alternate-universe story, then I hope we never return. I wouldn't mind seeing this young cast in another Star Trek movie, but I would want that movie to return us to this universe, where the Enterprise looks like the NCC-1701 of TOS, Vulcan still exists, and Amanda lives (and is not played by Winona Ryder). But I also believe this is too much to ask.

This "reboot" probably will be very popular with young movie fans. Thus, it might be the template for future Star Trek movies, in which we'll probably see more changes in Star Trek history. But no matter how popular this "rebooted" Star Trek becomes, it's no substitute for TOS or any other Star Trek series. If this is the only option for continuing Star Trek, then let the franchise die with some dignity.
2009-05-09
Didn't feel right to me
I'll start by saying I've been on this M-class planet since before the beginning of Star Trek in the 60s, so this isn't new to me as it might be for others.

While somewhat of a Trekker, I don't speak Klingon, own a phaser, and have never been to a convention, though the one in Galaxy Quest was a kick.

I understand this was billed to be the reboot of the franchise. Maybe it will be, but it wasn't for me. While the movie was OK, it was just that and again I noticed story took a back seat to CGI and too many fights, all to common this century.

I thought the characters were well cast. All of them. Some of the visuals were stunning, but..... and in no particular order.

Cpt. Nero (where was the fiddle) reminded me too much of Praetor Shinzon of Nemesis (not much) fame. So did their huge ships, designed to destroy entire worlds.

I felt like they paid homage to the ice planet (Hoth?) in Star Wars when Kirk just so happened to meet Spock Senior in an ice cave after being chased by several I'd like to eat you creatures.

The Enterprise's bridge looked good, but the rest of the ship reminded me of a dry cleaning factory. Pipes everywhere. And where was main engineering? And the windshield (?), did I see that correctly, that seemed to develop a crack during the ending struggle with the black hole created by this red lava lamp substance. Writers, where are you? On my way -- hopefully for the next movie.

That's just a few things. There are a few more.

See it, yes. Go back and see it again? Wait for the next one.
2009-05-08
Did JJ Abrams ever watch the show?
I went into this movie, maybe expecting to much. The new Kirk was not likable like Shatner was. One of TOS episodes "Shore Leave" has Kirk meeting people from his academy days such as Finnigan and the former love of his life, Ruth. Kirk explained to Spock he was "positively grim" as a student at Star Fleet. Definitely not the character in the movie. Other points made in TOS, referencing a young Ensign Kirk and his brother Sam were completely ignored. Also, the Kobiyashi Maru exercise,in the Wrath of Khan, it was explained the Kirk received a commendation for his original thinking. The list of differences between TOS TV show and movies goes on and on.

However, the highlights were the new Spock and McCoy. Well done portrayals and you can see the actors did their homework.

As someone that watched TOS when it was originally on TV and have been a big fan for 40 years, I was very unimpressed. But, I can see how this movie would appeal to younger viewers, but not people like myself that love TOS and watched it growing up and again in syndication. Was it a good movie? Perhaps. But, the Kirk character was changed to much to suit me. I went into watching this movie with very high expectations and felt left down when it was over.
2009-05-24
Star Trek: Rebooted!
Last night I was lucky enough to be one of the few to attend the world premiere of J.J. Abram's "Star Trek" at the Sydney Opera House. This red carpet event was every bit as surreal and magical as the film itself.

The film in many ways matched the venue – unreal. You have doubtless heard or seen other reviews (as I have) and they probably say the same thing: this is (in every sense of the phrase) a second take on the Star Trek universe, from the beginning.

From the opening sequence, JJ Abrams asserts his authority in a plot twist which will shake the very fabric of the Star Trek universe. In a sudden (plot) twist, the very nature of the film becomes clear: this is a new Star Trek.

However, the opening sequence delivers more than just this "statement" - it also gives us a taste of what is to come: action, drama, solid performances and an outstanding introduction to a new era.

Little by little we are introduced to the main characters, starting with Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Uhura as we briefly navigate their early lives including events at Starfleet Academy before hitting a plot crescendo which brings all the cast together – and to the starship Enterprise, NCC 1701!

This is a movie strong on character development, and each of the actors deliver brilliant performances – nothing less would be appropriate given the shoes each has to fill.

The movie moves along at an agreeable pace, never slow enough to be tedious, nor too frenetic so as to be judged another "run 'n' gun" style sci-fi action flick.

This is a movie with cutting edge special effects, but they serve more to frame the storyline and characters rather than to be the show entirely.

Star Trek has always been tied to models and great visuals, so this is something which we've come to expect from this groundbreaking franchise.

Since I do not intend to introduce spoilers in this review, I can only really say that the crew of the USS Enterprise is brought full circle to face the film's dark enemy, a Romulan by the name of Nero who is portrayed by Australia's own Eric Bana (who is not given nearly enough screen time in my humble opinion).

By now you've probably heard that the movie also features Leonard Nimoy – reprising his role as Mr (please, not Doctor) Spock. This is indeed true, however you may be surprised to learn that this is no token cameo role.

Leonard Nimoy's Spock plays a pivotal role in the film, and in a way bridges the franchise from the original series to the new film version. He also has delivery of my most favorite line in the film..

Each actor holds their own with the roles we know so well. It would be unfair to single out any specific actor.. but I have to say that Simon Pegg and Zachary Quinto are simply outstanding amongst a group of very talented actors in a movie which is (perhaps a little surprisingly) carried by strong character development.

In summary, this film is likely to appeal to a wide audience including die hard Trekkies and those new to the Star Trek universe. This is a must see film, even if you can't tell the difference between a Tribble and a Tholian!
2009-04-08
Predictable, Silly, Popcorn Flick. And cheap too ..
First, a disclaimer: I'm not a Trekkie. By a long shot. I couldn't give a hoot about how the movie fits in with the Star Trek "canon". Honestly, I couldn't care less. I watched it with an open mind, looking for entertainment. What I got instead was a bunch of frat boys and bimbos playing movie night, together with squirm inducing dialog, forced attempts at humor, and pandering to the Comic Book Guy fans (who got all the inside references about star fleet regulations, I'm sure). And yes, the plot was a mess.

Just a quick list:

- Kid Kirk driving the old car into the canyon, jumping out just in time to grab onto the edge of the abyss. What the ...?

- Lots of scenes were clearly shot inside some chemical plant. (Several stories high building with winding pipes running all over the place, etc.) I didn't know that space ships looked so much like your local sewage processing plant.

- 6 billion people (OK, Vulcans) die, yet everybody acts as if it were "no biggie" (or maybe they were just that bad as actors? Who knows?) The unimaginable just happened and you were half expecting the crew to high- five each other by the end. Honestly, the guards at Auschwitz must have shown more understanding for a tragedy of such epic proportions.

- Contriving to have each original character utter his/her "catchphrase" was so obviously forced that it was literally embarrassing to watch. I felt sorry for the actors. (Some people actually half-clapped when the old chestnuts were let slip. What the ...?)

- I know it's a stupid Star Trek tradition, but I found it "illogical" (thank you, Mr. Spock), if not outright idiotic that it was always the highest echelons of the command structure that went on suicidal commando style missions. (It happened at least three times. At least.) There is a reason why armies no longer have their generals leading the charge: they are harder to replace than infantry (ensigns, red shirts, etc.) Mild complaint, but it got pretty annoying given how everybody was supposed to be so "intelligent".

- I found quite amusing the movie's sophomoric implication that Kirk's getting in a fight every minute or two is the surest implication that he'll make a good captain. It follows that Mike Tyson would make the best captain of the Enterprise. Ever. (You have a problem with that!?) Also, it was nice touch to have Spock and Kirk go mano o mano for the captainship (and becoming friends). Maybe the authors watched Fight Club one time too many?

Funny thing is, with all the fawning, this is just another Star Trek movie (translation: campy melodrama with predictable plot).
2009-05-10
Doubly bad
Firstly: Not only is the writing vapid, you have no empathy towards the two dimensional characters and so the entire movie is missing pathos. The plot is itself thin, it seems that a few explosions and special effects are the limits of depth to this director. I wasted 80 bucks buying tickets to this piffle. And the lapses in logic, (one of many examples: why would any military grant a cadet Captaincy of the Federations most valuable warship?)

Secondly: For those of us with a memory, this movie is an insult. Repudiate years of my interest in a series solely because you have lazy writers is a huge insult to those of us who have wasted four decades watching Star Trek just to have every television program and movie repudiated to give these idiots "creative space"? Only the truly talentless could be so arrogant.

Goodbye Star Trek.
2009-05-15
And when I say "alternate" future I mean "unintelligent and pointless"
This is a really disappointing movie. This reboot of the Star Trek universe is way off the mark. The original series certainly shows its 1960's roots, but the characters, and almost all of the stories, were intelligently written and imaginatively and consistently developed.

The relationship between Kirk and Spock was built around each providing a counterpoint for the other's strengths, with Spock, of course, balancing Kirk's passion with a healthy dose of reason. Between them, they formed a symbiotic medium, reflecting the human condition that leadership and advancement comes from a balance of both reason and passion.

The original Kirk was passionate and decisive, but was not reckless. Nor was he consumed by his own crude, punk emotions. He was a leader who understood that his responsibilities extended to his ship, his crew, Star Fleet, and the rules and aims of the larger society. He let this guide his decisions. Even by himself, there was responsibility, rationality and reason within him. Spock represented, and added to, the pure rational component of any argument. Put together, the two characters showed us that goals and problems are best addressed by moving the human condition towards a stronger sense of responsibility, rationality and reason. It was a vision for the future.

Against that, in this new movie, both characters have moved decidedly away from the rational and towards the emotional. Kirk is now just some one-dimensional, self-obsessed, reckless angry rebel who treats every situation as an opportunity to start a bar fight (literally and/or figuratively). One expects future dialog to be along the lines of "Spock, did you see the way that ambassador glanced at me during negotiations? He needs a lesson in respect. Fire all photon torpedoes!!" Who in their right mind would want such a character as a starship captain?

And the new Spock has had the strengths of his rational side completely neutered. This new movie makes it obvious that his rational Vulcan side is ineffective, unimportant and weak, and that the emotional human side is where all the important cool parts are. The arc of the story in this movie seems to be constantly telling him: "Dude...stop thinking so much! What you need is to do is get yourself a girlfriend, get laid, have a few shots of Jack Daniels, and go punch a few people."

Similar dumbing-down occurs with the destruction of Vulcan. Six billion lives lost from a culture that was as advanced, peaceful and intelligent as the Vulcans (remember...it was the Vulcan's who first reached out to humanity to make First Contact) is an tragic, important event. The original series would have made THAT the point of the event, as it should be. But in this movie, the only really important thing was that Spock's mother was killed. Well! Now it's personal I guess! No wonder he's mad! Why is it that movies such as this can't talk in the important abstract? Why is there always the need to introduce the personal vendetta? Why can we not have an important cause that is worth struggling for in its own right?

In the aggregate, whereas the point of the original relationship between Spock and Kirk was that the addition of stronger reasoning adds to our human capacity, the point of this movie seems to be the opposite: that what humans need to do is reason less, think less, make everything personal, give authority and responsibility the finger, break as many rules as possible, and get into as many bar fights as we possibly can. I was hoping that we'd left that attitude behind us with the passing of the Bush years...but I guess not.

As a side rant on that...the American psyche is frustrating in its contradictions. We live in gated communities to keep us away from exactly the bar-fighting trash represented by Kirk in this movie. We want harsh, lock-em-away laws if such characters challenge our peace of mind. But in the movies, we celebrate those same characters fighting authority, breaking all the rules, thumbing their noses at exactly us and those we appoint, punching anyone who asks them to be reasonable, killing anyone who tries to stop them, and winning only by fighting, not by thinking or working together. The same effect shows up in shows like Prison Break. How does a society both impose capital punishment AND cheer for the (supposedly) wrongly convicted to fight against the police that are trying to enforce the very laws that us as a society put in place? If we recognize that people are sometimes wrongly convicted...why are we killing them?

The other sad direction in this movie was the removal of Vulcans and Romulans as alternate societies. Again, we seem to be taking the attitude that only "us" humans matter. The "others" are uninteresting, unimportant, and potentially get in the way. Whereas the original series celebrated the idea of different societies, and recognized that any society (even all of humanity itself) will benefit by coming together into a larger common society with others of sympathetic goals, this movie promotes the idea that we would be better off if everyone was more like us, or better yet, if everyone else BUT us would disappear. In this movie the "us" is humanity compared to the "them" of other planets. In our world, the "us" is our culture or country compared to the "them" of other cultures or countries. Again...I was hoping that such a provincial attitude would pass with the Bush years...but again sadly, I must be mistaken.

The original series was a vision for the future...a larger, more interesting future. The new movie is a vision for the past...a provincial, isolationist, fearful past. In the end, the world, and the galaxy, are both poorer places because of this movie when compared to the vision and intellect of the original series.
2009-06-15
Incompetent writing, too loud, space western
My precognition kicked in because I grabbed a paper napkin from the popcorn buttering station before I went in. I rolled it into a tight cylinder, tore off two inch long pieces, and stuck them in my ears. Thank goodness I did that, because most of the soundtrack is running at 110-130 decibels. I did like the nostalgia of seeing representations of the original cast as younger people. While Kirk, Spock, and McCoy looked a fair amount like the originals, Chekov, Sulu, Scotty, and Spock's father didn't resemble the first actors. Ohura, didn't look too much like the original, but she was beautiful enough that I could forgive them that.

The story was flaky and dumb - far too much of the shoot-em-up and protracted car chase mentality. I got really tired of the already way overdone cliché of the hero hanging over a precipice by his fingertips, so it was nauseating to put Kirk in that situation FOUR, count 'em, four times in the movie, starting as a little boy, and then with a villain trying to stomp on his fingers in two of those episodes.

Far too much noise, far too much repetition, quite a few inconsistencies with the original story situations, more fantasy and less Si-Fi.

I'm looking forward to the next in the series only if they get rid of the two writers who did this one.
2009-05-16
📹 Star Trek full movie HD download 2009 - Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols - USA, Germany. 📀
×